Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: albytastic on April 18, 2019, 09:09:10 am
-
I have often recommended Topaz Labs JPEG to RAW because I found it an incredible piece of software, especially when removing noise.
But their latest update is a TOTAL DISASTER!
They have replaced the noise reduction with 2 buttons, one claiming to reduce JPEG artefacts and the other to reduce blur.
The resulting program is now virtually USELESS!
Noise is exactly the same as if I didn't use it and the 2 buttons seem to have no effect at all.
So if you were considering buying this (now) piece of junk - DON'T!
If I seem to be slightly p***sed off you are right - I am - it was a lovely program - now a waste of disk space!
I will also be asking for my money back as it is no longer fit for purpose in my opinion!
-
...
-
I have often recommended Topaz Labs JPEG to RAW because I found it an incredible piece of software, especially when removing noise.
But their latest update is a TOTAL DISASTER!
They have replaced the noise reduction with 2 buttons, one claiming to reduce JPEG artefacts and the other to reduce blur.
The resulting program is now virtually USELESS!
Noise is exactly the same as if I didn't use it and the 2 buttons seem to have no effect at all.
So if you were considering buying this (now) piece of junk - DON'T!
If I seem to be slightly p***sed off you are right - I am - it was a lovely program - now a waste of disk space!
I will also be asking for my money back as it is no longer fit for purpose in my opinion!
So keep using the old version.
-
[...]
Noise is exactly the same as if I didn't use it and the 2 buttons seem to have no effect at all.
[...]
Hi,
That doesn't sound right, they do have an effect when I use them.
Maybe try reinstalling, and see if that makes a difference, or file a service request and allow the folks a Topaz to try to diagnose your issue?
Cheers,
Bart
-
I have often recommended Topaz Labs JPEG to RAW because I found it an incredible piece of software, especially when removing noise.
But their latest update is a TOTAL DISASTER!
They have replaced the noise reduction with 2 buttons, one claiming to reduce JPEG artefacts and the other to reduce blur.
The resulting program is now virtually USELESS!
Noise is exactly the same as if I didn't use it and the 2 buttons seem to have no effect at all.
So if you were considering buying this (now) piece of junk - DON'T!
If I seem to be slightly p***sed off you are right - I am - it was a lovely program - now a waste of disk space!
I will also be asking for my money back as it is no longer fit for purpose in my opinion!
It seems more that you got F***P by a piece of software: Never let that happen! it is only 1s and 0s badly ordered, nothing more.
-
...
Yeah great advice - an Uzi with a full magazine is far more effective!
-
Hi,
That doesn't sound right, they do have an effect when I use them.
Maybe try reinstalling, and see if that makes a difference, or file a service request and allow the folks a Topaz to try to diagnose your issue?
Cheers,
Bart
I tried re-installing but no effect - and the Topaz Forum is worse than useless, can't even work out how to start a new thread.
The NR system was on of the main reasons I bought it and the way it recovered lost detail was incredible - now useless.
It worked perfectly before the update but now no good at all - in fact worse than useless because I wasted money buying it!
-
I'm with Peter and Pieter,
I would be VERY happy, I found something that worked for me and just go back to the previous version. Because 'new' doesn't necessarily mean better. (It could just be 'different' or worse)
I 'just' recently upgraded to Acrobat DC because from version X1, because it was a nightmare upgrade for me.. Now using DC, in it's current and much more mature state, I love it to death. But it took YEARS before the current DC version was useful for my needs.
-
I tried re-installing but no effect - and the Topaz Forum is worse than useless, can't even work out how to start a new thread.
The NR system was on of the main reasons I bought it and the way it recovered lost detail was incredible - now useless.
"JPEG to Raw AI"is not a noise reduction application. It aims at recovering detail and color from compression artifacts, and it can add some sharpness without amplifying remaining lossy compression artifacts, if sharpness got compromised along the way.
It sounds like you would require Topaz Denoise AI instead, because that application is designed to reduce noise, and sharpen some of the blur that that process may have introduced. It's a free upgrade if you already owned a prior Denoise plugin license.
Cheers,
Bart
-
"JPEG to Raw AI"is not a noise reduction application. It aims at recovering detail and color from compression artifacts, and it can add some sharpness without amplifying remaining lossy compression artifacts, if sharpness got compromised along the way.
I just looked at the description of this product on the Topaz website. I had some difficulty parsing the marketing language, but obviously "JPEG to Raw" is just a marketing slogan: you can't uncook an egg. I presume what that means is that this product rebuilds an image from a JPEG original based on a machine-learning dataset, then packages it as a linear DNG. Is that correct?
-
I just looked at the description of this product on the Topaz website. I had some difficulty parsing the marketing language, but obviously "JPEG to Raw" is just a marketing slogan: you can't uncook an egg. I presume what that means is that this product rebuilds an image from a JPEG original based on a machine-learning dataset, then packages it as a linear DNG. Is that correct?
I'm not sure about the "rebuilding" part. Massaging the images to ameliorate compression artifacts might be a better description. The resulting image is placed in a DNG wrapper, which of course does not make it a RAW.
-
I just looked at the description of this product on the Topaz website. I had some difficulty parsing the marketing language, but obviously "JPEG to Raw" is just a marketing slogan: you can't uncook an egg. I presume what that means is that this product rebuilds an image from a JPEG original based on a machine-learning dataset, then packages it as a linear DNG. Is that correct?
Close. It uses a Machine Learning model that was trained on image pairs, a Raw quality demosaic versus a JPEG lossy compressed version of the same image (at various levels of compression). That model then attempts to reverse the process based on the compromised JPEG as input. Of course, that won't create a Raw, but it aims at something that comes close (like after demosaicing). It can wrap it in a DNG container for easy integration in one's Raw workflow.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I just looked at the description of this product on the Topaz website. I had some difficulty parsing the marketing language, but obviously "JPEG to Raw" is just a marketing slogan: you can't uncook an egg. I presume what that means is that this product rebuilds an image from a JPEG original based on a machine-learning dataset, then packages it as a linear DNG. Is that correct?
It's utter marketing rubbish but we've been over this in the past. Some think it's fine to basically utterly lie to people who don't know better. Other's think it's a sign this company has to resort to making up utter marketing rubbish to sell a product. Other's still see the need to defend it, rather than on the merits of what it can do.
The product can't and doesn't convert a JPEG to raw.
The product can't and doesn't allow a JPEG to be edited as if it were a raw.
Those are lies.
The product can improve a JPEG. Great. Just state that.
-
It sounds like you would require Topaz Denoise AI instead,
Just tried this program and it blew me away. Works great on 4/3 6400 ISO images. Great results and easy to use. New so all features of Topaz software are not there yet. If you need noise reduction check it out.
Larry
-
Just tried this program and it blew me away. Works great on 4/3 6400 ISO images. Great results and easy to use. New so all features of Topaz software are not there yet. If you need noise reduction check it out.
Larry
What I was getting at is that up until the latest upgrade of JPEG to RAW it actually DID reduce noise and extremely well - there was a single button for noise and blur reduction and when set to high it not only reduced noise vastly but also really increased the detail in my photos.
That was one of the reasons I bought the program because it worked so well - now it's totally useless to do the very things it used to do.
And I've tried de-noise and it does work but why should I now pay because Topaz Labs crippled their own program - seems to me to be a total con job!
And how long before they do the same for de-noise to take the suckers for even more money?
I certainly don't trust any company who does that!
-
I learned the hard way on a different program from Topaz. Don't allow updates, until you have heard from others if the updates could have a negative effect. There is no way to get a previous version to reinstall. They update the downloader to the most current version and what you download to your PC or Mac, is just a tiny piece of software that runs out to their server to get the actual download.
Paul C
-
I learned the hard way on a different program from Topaz. Don't allow updates, until you have heard from others if the updates could have a negative effect. There is no way to get a previous version to reinstall. They update the downloader to the most current version and what you download to your PC or Mac, is just a tiny piece of software that runs out to their server to get the actual download.
Paul C
Which is exactly what happened to me!
It looks as if they de-coupled both the NR and increasing detail part of it because it now runs much faster then before and the size of the download is several hundreds of megs less.
And de-noise now does that part of the program.
A bunch of total con merchants just trying to screw customers who actually bought their products.
Absolutely disgusted with their methods!
-
Andrew, be careful, you might run out of "utters."
-
Andrew, be careful, you might run out of "utters."
I'll convert them to raw <g>.
-
Topaz has now offered to refund me all the money I spent on their products so that's something I guess.
But still doesn't make up for the fact that I now have no product that comes anywhere near what this program could do.
I tried de-noise but that doesn't support batch processing which JPEG to RAW did.
So as far as I'm concerned a brilliant program totally ruined by crooks trying to squeeze the last penny out of their customers.
So I am still more than pi***d off especially since I also spent £140.00 ($160+) to upgrade the GPU on one of my Z800s to run their programs.
-
You're not the only one today upset with the company:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/topaz-labs-studio.5514607/
It's a shame they have such good engineering and such 'crooks' in marketing and apparently from the above, subpar tech support.
-
Topaz has now offered to refund me all the money I spent on their products so that's something I guess.
But still doesn't make up for the fact that I now have no product that comes anywhere near what this program could do.
I tried de-noise but that doesn't support batch processing which JPEG to RAW did.
So as far as I'm concerned a brilliant program totally ruined by crooks trying to squeeze the last penny out of their customers.
So I am still more than pi***d off especially since I also spent £140.00 ($160+) to upgrade the GPU on one of my Z800s to run their programs.
Why not just shoot RAW? Then you wouldn't need the program and your end results would be better.
-
Why not just shoot RAW? Then you wouldn't need the program and your end results would be better.
Because I wasn't looking to create RAW files from a JPEG, I bought the program because it could do things which RAW couldn't - namely reduce noise and restore lost details all in one go and without having to fiddle with sliders.
And I could also batch process hundreds of photos at once, something which Topaz claims that De-Noise cannot yet do!
And yes, I could use a NR program, and try sharpening the pics, but JPEG to RAW still produced much better results with much less trouble.
So I find it inconceivable that they could deliberately destroy this program, and I also wonder how long before they start to carve up their other programs in order to make a few more bucks at the expense of their loyal customers?
And I certainly would never trust them again or purchase any other programs from them.
-
I tried de-noise but that doesn't support batch processing which JPEG to RAW did.
If you have PS you can batch process Denoise. I batched Denoise AI last night and it worked well. You need Russel Browns Image Processor installed on your PC (google). Then you need to create a simple action and you are all set.
Also Topaz Studio supports batch processing but I did not have much luck with that.
Larry
-
Because I wasn't looking to create RAW files from a JPEG, I bought the program because it could do things which RAW couldn't - namely reduce noise and restore lost details all in one go and without having to fiddle with sliders.
Wll, first you can't create raw files from a JPEG. No more than you can create flour (or eggs, or butter or sugar) from a baked cake. 2nd, it can't do thinks which raw can't.
As for detail and data and DR, you can't create what doesn't exist. Ideally you want to stick with the raw data. The JPEG engine that processes the raw massively clips and compresses highlights. We often don't when editing the raw. This compression can clump midtones as much as 1 stop while compressing shadow details! People incorrectly state that raw has more highlight data but the fact is, the DR captured is an attribute of the capture system; it's all there in the raw but maybe not in a camera proceed JPEG.
A raw capture that's 10 or 11 stops of dynamic range can be compressed to 7 stops from this JPEG processing which is a significant amount of data and tonal loss! So when we hear people state that a raw has more DR than a JPEG, it's due to the poor rendering or handling of the data to create that JPEG. The rendering of this data and the reduction of dynamic range is from the JPEG engine that isn't handling the DR data that does exists as well as we can from the raw! Another reason to capture and render the raw data, assuming you care about how the image is rendered!
-
Wll, first you can't create raw files from a JPEG. No more than you can create flour (or eggs, or butter or sugar) from a baked cake. 2nd, it can't do thinks which raw can't.
As for detail and data and DR, you can't create what doesn't exist. Ideally you want to stick with the raw data. The JPEG engine that processes the raw massively clips and compresses highlights. We often don't when editing the raw. This compression can clump midtones as much as 1 stop while compressing shadow details! People incorrectly state that raw has more highlight data but the fact is, the DR captured is an attribute of the capture system; it's all there in the raw but maybe not in a camera proceed JPEG.
A raw capture that's 10 or 11 stops of dynamic range can be compressed to 7 stops from this JPEG processing which is a significant amount of data and tonal loss! So when we hear people state that a raw has more DR than a JPEG, it's due to the poor rendering or handling of the data to create that JPEG. The rendering of this data and the reduction of dynamic range is from the JPEG engine that isn't handling the DR data that does exists as well as we can from the raw! Another reason to capture and render the raw data, assuming you care about how the image is rendered!
As I have already stated many times I couldn't care less what the program called itself because it did exactly what I wanted!
And regardless of what you think I found it incredibly useful!
-
As I have already stated many times I couldn't care less what the program called itself because it did exactly what I wanted!
You clearly stated (not them): Because I wasn't looking to create RAW files from a JPEG....
Good, because you can't. Enough said.
As to the rest, I'm simply pointing out what you said also doesn't wash: I bought the program because it could do things which RAW couldn't.
This question makes a heck of a lot of sense if (when) you think about it:
Why not just shoot RAW? Then you wouldn't need the program and your end results would be better.
::)
-
You're not the only one today upset with the company:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/topaz-labs-studio.5514607/
It's a shame they have such good engineering and such 'crooks' in marketing and apparently from the above, subpar tech support.
Well they were double quick in replying to my emails AND my refunds are now in my PayPal account so financially I haven't lost out.
Mind you that may have had something to do with my language and threats to go to the FTC over their business practices!
But I have still installed an NVidia 1050Ti 4GB GPU on one of my Z800s to run these programs.
And I've had to put a warning notice on my Flickr site about their programs, since I praised it so highly!
All In all a complete debacle for Topaz - and totally unnecessary to garnish such bad publicity from what used to be such a great program!
-
You clearly stated (not them): Because I wasn't looking to create RAW files from a JPEG....
Good, because you can't. Enough said.
As to the rest, I'm simply pointing out what you said also doesn't wash: I bought the program because it could do things which RAW couldn't.
This question makes a heck of a lot of sense if (when) you think about it:
Why not just shoot RAW? Then you wouldn't need the program and your end results would be better.
::)
Sorry you don't seem to understand - if I shoot RAW and just miss focus does it magically fix it - NO!
If I shoot RAW and have a lot of noise does it magically fix it - NO!
But one pass through J2R and they were fixed !
So please stop bleating on as if RAW is a magic elixir which fixes all problems - it isn't and it doesn't!
-
Sorry you don't seem to understand - if I shoot RAW and just miss focus does it magically fix it - NO!
If I shoot RAW and have a lot of noise does it magically fix it - NO!
But one pass through J2R and they were fixed !
So please stop bleating on as if RAW is a magic elixir which fixes all problems - it isn't and it doesn't!
If/when you optimally expose for raw, you will greatly reduced noise and have far more DR and a lot more to work with than any JPEG! But if you prefer polishing truds; it's your images; go for it.
-
Andrew,
You might enjoy reading this webpage on "trud" meanings:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trud
Richard Southworth
-
Andrew, :'(
You might enjoy reading this webpage on "trud" meanings:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trud
Richard Southworth
Let me correct myself :'( :
But if you prefer polishing turds; it's your images; go for it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/turd
-
If you have PS you can batch process Denoise. I batched Denoise AI last night and it worked well. You need Russel Browns Image Processor installed on your PC (google). Then you need to create a simple action and you are all set.
Also Topaz Studio supports batch processing but I did not have much luck with that.
Larry
There are loads of scripts on his site - which one do I actually need?
-
Andrew,
You might enjoy reading this webpage on "trud" meanings:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trud
Richard Southworth
Very interesting Richard. But here's another one that probably only Cannucks would appreciate, perhaps. In the Apple Dictionary there seems to be no actual definition of the word Trud. It does however show the word / name - Trudeau. As in Justin, as in Pierre, as in Prime Minister and as in "Problems" - Apparently ;) By the way I spell the word "Colour" I suspect that most of you folks who dare read some of my posts would assume that I am also a Cannuck, and you would be quite correct. I will admit that back in the "Flower Power" days I was a fan of Pierre and followed him on a couple of occasions while working as the photographer for a local newspaper. However, even though I voted Liberal as usual in the last national election I'm afraid the gleam has since left the name Trudeau, as in Justin.
OK, enough and probably much more information than required.
To you fine folks south of the 49th - Good Luck !!!!! :)
And to ALL - Happy Easter
Gary
-
There are loads of scripts on his site - which one do I actually need?
You don't need any of them. You've gotten your refunds and are not longer using Topaz products. Right?
-
You don't need any of them. You've gotten your refunds and are not longer using Topaz products. Right?
I still have a free trial of de-noise which is why I asked.
-
I still have a free trial of de-noise which is why I asked.
And I certainly would never trust them again or purchase any other programs from them.
-
There are loads of scripts on his site - which one do I actually need?
I think I steered you wrong on the Image Processor. You do not need Russell Browns app. I used in PS File->Scripts->Image Processor. It is built into PS. I used Browns program some years ago and thought that is what I used. I actually used Image Processor that was built into PS.
The action used is very simple. Make a new layer, call Denoise AI, do what you need in Denoise AI and then close.
I had not done this in years and I figured it out pretty quickly. Worked great. A very useful technique. If you have any questions, ask.
Larry
-
Topaz has now offered to refund me all the money I spent on their products so that's something I guess.
So as far as I'm concerned a brilliant program totally ruined by crooks trying to squeeze the last penny out of their customers.
They (at least used to) have all of their prior versions in an Amazon S3 bucket. If you know the version that worked best for you, ask them to find out the correct direct download link for you.
-
They (at least used to) have all of their prior versions in an Amazon S3 bucket. If you know the version that worked best for you, ask them to find out the correct direct download link for you.
There are no download links - all you get now is an online installer which downloads the latest one - which is now a $100 rip off!
-
There are no download links - all you get now is an online installer which downloads the latest one - which is now a $100 rip off!
Oh how bitter the fruit of life. Not everything turns out as we would hope. The key to life is dealing with such setbacks with equanimity. It's time to move on.
-
There are no download links - all you get now is an online installer which downloads the latest one - which is now a $100 rip off!
You misunderstood me. I didn't say they published the links, only that all the old versions were still online for download. There are (or were) both online and offline installers. You'll have to ask Topaz support to give you a direct link for some speific version.
-
Oh how bitter the fruit of life. Not everything turns out as we would hope. The key to life is dealing with such setbacks with equanimity. It's time to move on.
Brilliant! I have to save this one...
-
I am surprised that the title and content of this thread is still showing here? Capitol letters and alleged swear word isn't a good advert for the site and the posters intransigence to understand doesn't make an informative post. :o
-
I am surprised that the title ... of this thread is still showing here? Capital letters and alleged swear word isn't a good advert for the site ...
+1
-
I am surprised that the title and content of this thread is still showing here? Capitol letters and alleged swear word isn't a good advert for the site and the posters intransigence to understand doesn't make an informative post. :o
No precedent was actually set with the "restraint" in the cap letters and alleged swear word. Do an Advanced Search for the word in full, I found no less than 30 posts where the un-redacted word was used. So apparently the use doesn't break any forum rules.
I'm not condoning the use of the word in full or semi redacted but I think maybe the forum here is less severe in the use of such language as others and that's fine with me. So -1. ;)
-
... Do an Advanced Search for the word in full, I found no less than 30 posts where the un-redacted word was used...
In the title?
I was once banned (by the previous management) for writing "f..k off"
-
In the title?
I was once banned (by the previous management) for writing "f..k off"
1. No, in posts. The word is still the word. It's still spread throughout the forums. Big F'ing' deal. ;)
2. Sure it wasn't for something else said? :P
-
1. No, in posts. The word is still the word. It's still spread throughout the forums. Big F'ing' deal. ;)...
The word might be the same, but the impact isn't. There is a difference between being buried among several pages and hundreds of replies, and featured prominently, in all caps even, on the main page with forum topics.
I generally decry the spread of profanities in a civilized discourse. It cheapens everyone.
-
The word might be the same, but the impact isn't. There is a difference between being buried among several pages and hundreds of replies, and featured prominently, in all caps even, on the main page with forum topics.
The impact noted is your opinion. The facts are, the word in full is found in the forum posts. Perhaps the sensibilities of the owners (current and previous management) and your own sensibilities so differ such you should find another forum to hang out in. I suggest those over on DPR where any number of words are automatically banned and moderator censorship is high. LuLa doesn't seem the right fit for you sir.
I generally decry the spread of profanities in a civilized discourse. It cheapens everyone.
And yet by your own admission, you were banned for doing just that, for writing "f..k off"
“Hypocrite: The man who murdered his parents, and then pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan.”― Abraham Lincoln
-
...you should find another forum to hang out in...
You wish.
... And yet by your own admission, you were banned for doing just that, for writing "f..k off"...
Once in 13,000+ posts. Nobody is perfect. I was guilty and accepted the punishment without complaint.
-
You wish.
Another assumption from your keyboard. I rather enjoy illustrating your misunderstandings (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=130085.msg1105223#msg1105223) of color and outlining the posted hypocrisy. :P
I was guilty and accepted the punishment without complaint.
Seems that's exactly what you did today on top of telling us how egregious the use of F**K is while admitting you told someone to "f..k off" which is perhaps what you're now thinking.
Enough said, you're not doing your readers any favors by showing your various states of mind, opinions and assumptions. IF you're so upset by the subject title, do let the mod's know; you're just wasting your time and theirs.
-
... while admitting you told someone to "f..k off" which is perhaps what you're now thinking...
It would be my pleasure and honor, Sir, to be banned once again for interacting with you in a similar fashion.
-
It would be my pleasure and honor, Sir, to be banned once again for interacting with you in a similar fashion.
First law on holes - when you're deep in one, stop digging!
But sure, go for it, show additional hypocrisy. I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by you fulfilling the above promise. :-*
-
... But sure, go for it...
No need, I already did, without using a single profanity.
-
No need, I already did, without using a single profanity.
No, you didn't. But this is getting rather pointless, you've been called out and the hypocrisy was outlined. You made a promise you didn't keep. Really, the DPR forums are a perfect fit for you. :P
-
Enough.
Jeremy